The Pender Journalhttp://www.thependerjournal.com
Friends Writing TogetherThu, 16 Jun 2016 22:37:58 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.133 Reasons Why You Should Watch the NBA This Yearhttp://www.thependerjournal.com/sports/3-reasons-why-you-should-watch-the-nba-this-year
http://www.thependerjournal.com/sports/3-reasons-why-you-should-watch-the-nba-this-year#respondMon, 26 Nov 2012 15:51:24 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=936You don’t watch NBA basketball. You think the players are selfish and overpaid. You think they don’t play hard until the playoffs. I understand. I hardly watched much NBA over the decade, for the same reasons.

But I’ve re-discovered my love for the NBA. Last year, I got roped back in. Here are three reasons why you should start watching the NBA again.

3. The Knicks are good. Rasheed Wallace lives.
The Knicks opened the season with a compelling 20-point victory over The Heat. Carmelo Anthony dropped 30 on Lebron & friends, on national television. Despite being the oldest team in the league– featuring old-timers like Jason Kidd, Marcus Camby, and Rasheed Wallace– they looked good. They shot well from the outside and moved the ball well. They looked like an actual basketball team. The question remains about whether Carmelo will be able to co-exist with Amar’e Stoudemire, once he returns from injury. I’m happy that the Knicks seem to be thriving in the post-Linsanity era. Plus, it’s hard to pass up the chance to see Rasheed Wallace talking trash to the opposing youngsters.

2. Steve Nash has reunited with Mike D’Antoni.
I’ve never liked the Lakers or Kobe Bryant. But I love Steve Nash more than I hate Kobe, because of how Steve plays the game (and his hilarious assortment of youtube videos, which you should watch). With the addition of Dwight Howard and coach Mike D’Antoni, these guys may be able to win the West and take a shot at the title.

Mike D’Antoni coached Nash in Phoenix. D’Antoni was the mastermind behind an uptempo, run-and-gun style of offense, that propelled Phoenix to the Western Conference Finals in 2005 and 2006. A younger Steve Nash ran point on these high-octane Phoenix squads. The style of play in Phoenix, combined with rule changes that opened up the floor, changed the landscape of the NBA. Big men no longer dominate. It is a guard’s league.

Can D’Antoni and Nash run this style of offense in 2012? Will D’Antoni’s uptempo style prove to be a better fit for this team than Phil Jackson’s triangle offense? How will Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard fit into this system? Does Kobe have enough pieces around him to will the Lakers to a championship? Will the team be able to withstand all of the pressure that comes with the expectation of success?

This storyline is too compelling to ignore.

1. Lebron James is super-human.
For the first 8 years of his career, Lebron failed to win a championship. Everyone wondered if he had that “killer instinct” and whether he’d ever live up to his potential. In the Eastern Conference Finals last year, The Heat were down 3-2 against the Celtics. The pressure of elimination in game 6 fell squarely upon Lebron’s shoulders. His legacy was on the line. He responded with 45 points, 15 rebounds, and 5 assists. He single-handedly dismantled Boston, relying on an improved interior post-up play. He went on to win the Championship. The critics were silenced. He had become the Lebron we knew he could be.

During the Finals last year, I told my boss– who is not a sports fan– to make sure that his young sons watch Lebron play. His sons are the bookish type, and sports is not a priority in their home (sadly). I made my boss promise to watch Lebron with his sons, telling him that they would be more well-rounded human beings for knowing about the best basketball player on the planet. I stand by this statement.

Lebron has the body of Karl Malone, the play-making abilities of Magic Johnson, and the footwork of Jordan. The NBA has never seen a talent with Lebron’s unique mix of size, strength, speed, and sheer athleticism. When his career is over, Lebron may prove to be the most gifted athlete of my lifetime. This man is now at the zenith of his basketball powers. If you are any sort of basketball fan, you will watch Lebron James this year.

Blaine Lay

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/sports/3-reasons-why-you-should-watch-the-nba-this-year/feed0The Pander Journal: Littering and Votinghttp://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/politics-ideas/the-pander-journal-littering-and-voting
http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/politics-ideas/the-pander-journal-littering-and-voting#respondThu, 25 Oct 2012 17:47:53 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=930This “article” is part of a “series” we’re calling The Pander Journal, which will be “following” the presidential election of November 2012.

Being a Millennial isn’t easy. Unemployment is high, your friends take photos of food and upload them to the internet, and people are always trying to force you into voting. I don’t believe in voting, but I do believe in littering. I come to both of these conclusions through the exact same reasoning.

I have a bad habit of confessing this in small social gatherings, where I always get two reactions. The first reaction is simple dismissal, something like “there he goes again.” Fine, whatever. But the second reaction is far more interesting: horror, disappointment, and finally, disdain. Those exhibiting the latter reaction are generally female, several years younger than I am, pretty, and socially conscious. In other words, the exact audience I’m trying to impress. Never do I encounter eager agreement; this is probably a good thing.

The following is fairly typical:

“I’m not sure I see the merit in voting anymore,” I say.
“What?” says the young, pretty, socially conscious girl. She was already deeply conflicted about talking to me in the first place. I am not helping myself out.
“Yeah, I mean, my voting literally doesn’t matter. Pick any given state or national election, heck, throw in local elections too. How often are they decided by one vote?” I say.
“Are you kidding me?” she responds. “What if everyone thought that way?”
“Well,” I say, one finger in the air in my best pose of erudition, “my voting or not voting doesn’t change what other people do.”
“But you have the power to influence people,” she insists. “What if they stop voting, and then get others to stop voting, and so on?”
“It’s not the swine flu,” I counter. “I don’t think my behavior multiplies to others at an exponential rate.” At this point, several of the young, pretty, socially conscious girl’s friends have gathered around, and most of them are looking at me as if I were canvassing the bar collecting signatures for a petition to award tax money toward the construction of meth labs adjacent to elementary schools. “Look,” I say, “all I’m arguing is that a) elections are rarely, if ever, decided by one vote and b) my behavior isn’t influential to a degree where my actions make a dent in the outcome.”

Granted, my fictional rhetorical nemesis is right. If everyone thought like I did, the consequences for our democracy would be dire. But I’m also unimpeachably right. I’m the exception. My singular behavior rarely changes things at large. For instance, I don’t support littering in theory, but if the options are hanging on to my trash until I get to an acceptable repository for waste or subtly dropping candy wrappers on the sidewalk, I choose the latter at least seven times out of ten. I don’t know that I notice my neighborhood has changed in any meaningful way by my drop-in-the-ocean contribution to the disgusting societal blight of litter. In such cases, I find pro-social behavior can be very draining.

That said, I really hope you don’t change your behavior. If you did, I might have to stop littering. Don’t ruin that for me.

I suggested that artists give their work to the public who instinctively begin interpreting. This left us with a question: how can we interpret correctly? There is a closet full of meaning and there are many ways to access it, but I hope simply to offer you a key that unlocks the door. Once you figure the lock and turn the knob, most everything will tumble out. But before you take the keys, we need to talk about what we can know.

What is knowledge? Facts, right? If you want know something, you collect the data, test it, keep the true and toss the false. You then establish certainties about reality: truth statements, propositions, concrete knowledge. We pursue timeless, sovereign, capital Truth. This model is familiar, but does it hold?

Five years ago I did not know how to read poetry. When I read William Butler Yeats I thought, “This is cute” or “This is confusing”. I sensed he meant more, but I could not discern it on my own. I took a poetry course where my teacher began pointing at things. “This is contrast…See how repetition develops that character…This theme recurs…And the inconclusive tension you feel? A wholeness incomplete? It’s intended; typical Yeats.” I kept reading. I wrote, I discussed, I listened, I trusted and reread. When I open to The Fisherman, now I know what to look for. “Before I am old / I shall have written him one / Poem maybe as cold / And as passionate as the dawn.” I see what Yeats wants me to see: unfulfilled desire, bipolar expression, trout fishing allusions. Poetry makes more sense. I no longer fork for meaning in the dark; I have the poet with two hands.

How is this significant for interpreting? If knowledge reduces to Truths, then The Fisherman reduces to Truth A, Truth B, and Truth C. But when I learned to interpret poetry, I did not learn to decode. Poetry did not become a math equation where “swans” = freedom and “I” = everyman. It involved this, but was not diminished to it. Interpretation is not a factory. We do not scan a poem or painting, enter a code, and receive a print out of its Truth. Interpreting is more like a relationship. You learn to cooperate with the artist and the work. You participate. You meet, inquire and listen. This involves not only thinking, but also feeling and doing. Knowing a piece of art – interpreting it – is not cognitive truth and error; it is a full-bodied skill.

Once you hone the skill something else happens. I had Yeats with two hands; I knew what he meant. But just as my grip steadied and I stared him in the eye, he began writhing and shouting louder than before. He was not so easily conquered. My insights crystallized, but my questions were proliferating. Meaning is not distilled by correct interpretation; it explodes.

Would the artist agree? I think so. If they wanted to communicate a proposition, they could have. It would be far less risky and easier to interpret. Yeats may have written, “My contemporaries are idiots. I want to write for a wise and simple people.” But he wrote a poem instead. Artists choose a medium and create more than a sentence. Then they give it to us. They present and exhibit their artwork. Why? Because they want us to discover something.

How do we discover? We need those keys. I have already suggested some: find a teacher, cooperate with the artist, do not reduce their art to “Truths”. Other suggestions are scattered throughout this series: consider the context, learn a bit about the artist, pay attention. There are two final keys for interpretation, very strong yet very simple: listen and ask questions. Ask more questions and keep listening. This excludes two things: talking all the time and assuming you are infallible. The closet is full of meaning. If you want in, there is no need to break the knob, axe the doorframe or unscrew the hinges. Take these keys and use them.

Artists have given us a product because they want us to discover something. What do they intend us to find? Certainly more than truth statements. It may be humor, insights simple or profound, a dormant sorrow or raging passion. They may even hope that you discover a motive for rebellion, brotherly love, or ambivalence. Regardless, go. Find a piece of art and try to make sense of it. If you read “Young-adult fiction”, you may find more than child’s play. If you watch The Dark Night Rises, you may see more than a mask. Or one of those odd post-modern paintings may confront you with the heartache of an entire generation. It may even prompt you to do something about it. And if you are courageous enough to ask and humble enough to listen, you may discover that some artists have profound views on the origin and purposes of the world; and why its inhabitants seem so god-awful yet so mesmerizing.

Arthur Keefer

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/art/discovering-art-discovery/feed0The Pander Journal: Biden Takes the Gloves Off; What Does it Mean For Us?http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/politics-ideas/the-pander-journal-biden-takes-the-gloves-off-what-does-it-mean-for-us
http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/politics-ideas/the-pander-journal-biden-takes-the-gloves-off-what-does-it-mean-for-us#respondThu, 11 Oct 2012 14:00:38 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=910This “article” is part of a “series” we’re calling The Pander Journal, which will be “following” the presidential election of November 2012.

President Obama’s debate performance, widely characterized by pundits of all stripes as a flop, has many predicting that tonight’s vice presidential debate will feature Joe Biden like we’ve always seen him before: aggressive, rough-around-the-edges, and ready to vehemently defend the administration’s record against his Republican challenger, Congressman Paul Ryan. Obama campaign high command has changed the rules of engagement, say the experts, and Biden, charged with reclaiming the momentum from a suddenly surging Romney/Ryan ticket, appears ready to do what Obama couldn’t or wouldn’t: go for the jugular. And yet, vice presidential debates historically have very little impact on the race. What then could be the real consequences of letting Biden off the leash? What impact might tonight’s contest have for the nation? What follows are three things that are sure to come to pass if Biden comes out swinging.

1. Democrats will all become racist again. Though now commonly thought of as the party of affirmative action, civil rights, and Jay-Z concerts, it wasn’t too long ago that Democrats were known for a more sinister triad of policy prescriptions: segregation, Jim Crow, and Massive Resistance. A resurgent Joe Biden, flush with newfound political capital, can only lead his party back towards its pre-Civil Rights Act roots, if his interactions with Indian-Americans and his “praise” of Barack Obama are any indication.

2. America’s moral fabric will decisively tear. An emboldened Biden may feel all too comfortable venturing into what’s traditionally been Republican territory over the last few decades—speaking assertively about his faith. This will continue to underscore the crumbling of the nation’s Judeo-Christian foundation, highlighting how, for the first time in our history, both party’s tickets exclusively feature non-Christians—three cultists and a man who grew up going to a madrasa: Romney (Mormon), Ryan (Catholic), Biden (Catholic), and Obama (Muslim).

3. The shadowy and powerful “daytime TV-sporting event telecast” axis, already overwhelming in its influence, will finally achieve complete hegemony in the media. A swing-for-the-fences performance out of Biden is sure to bring more attention to the relatively unknown Paul Ryan, fueling speculation that he is, indeed, the love child of a torrid time-bending love affair between Aaron Rodgers and Ellen DeGeneres. This type of scrutiny is sure to serve the corporate interests of the aforementioned axis, but the cost may prove too high for average viewers like you and me who may want to watch something other than a talk show or a football game from time to time.

Dylan Wedan

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/politics-ideas/the-pander-journal-biden-takes-the-gloves-off-what-does-it-mean-for-us/feed0It’s All About Youhttp://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/its-all-about-you
http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/its-all-about-you#respondMon, 10 Sep 2012 15:37:05 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=876If you’ve ever been to a professional sporting event you’ve probably witnessed this scene: The game has grown decidedly boring and overlong, eyes are beginning to glaze, smart phones emerge from pockets, and minds begin to wander toward post-game festivities. Snap back to reality, and all of a sudden the cameraman has honed in on your section! You find yourself instantly bursting with enthusiasm – dancing, jumping, and waving. Your face (YOUR face!) is on the jumbotron! Nothing else that happens in the game can top that triumphant moment when all eyes were on you. You may not remember the score of the game or even the teams that were playing, but that one moment where you were the center of attention is unforgettable.

Or take an embarrassing moment from your past – you probably have agonized over the moment far after everyone else has forgotten it even happened. I remember feeling intensely embarrassed early in high school when a girl I thought was excitedly waving at me turned out to be trying to get the attention of the people behind me. For me it was demoralizing and humiliating. But ten minutes and over ten years later, nobody else had even the slightest memory of the event.

More painful still are those moments where a careless, calloused word or demeaning remark inflict lasting impressions on our psyche. Though the speaker surely never meant their words to leave such an indelible impression, many of us were shaped by and cannot forget them. Decades later, we bear invisible scars that time has not erased.

The common thread throughout these experiences is an obsession with ourselves. As exuberant or embarrassed or wounded we may feel looking back, all of these are solely personal experiences; and the deflating, relieving, or hurtful truth is that most likely we are the only ones to remember them. In reality, our preoccupation with ourselves runs much, much deeper than any other person’s interest in us. The overwhelming amount of our thoughts and behaviors revolve around ourselves, to a point where we delude ourselves into imagining everything that happens actually and eventually is all about us.

That may sound a bit selfish, but really not that bad, right? The problem is that the object of our greatest attention is immensely flawed. We may be self-deprecating or full of pride, but either way we are focused on an imperfect creature. Some of us look inside and see the scars, imperfections, failures, and missed opportunities. Others of us narcissistically shower ourselves with praises and accolades– alienating ourselves from others. Either way, our obsession with self creates a madness of self-absorption that pervades our culture, our thought processing, and our experience of life.

At the center of our little universe, we constantly look to our wants, needs, and passions as the only solution for the dissatisfaction we may feel with life. But instead of assisting us in this endeavor, we soon may realize that everyone else is doing the same thing – not looking to fill us, but to fill themselves.

Clearly, moments of attention should be enjoyed. Moments of embarrassment can serve as lessons. Moments of pain may result in growth, forgiveness and healing. But at the end of the day, who else cares? Maybe everything is all about us as individuals; and as you navigate through the stimulating and mundane stretches of life, if you can somehow maximize the excitement, indulgence, and gratification, that will constitute a life well lived and a cause worth rallying behind. Maybe that’s all there is. Maybe there’s something more.

Steve Biederman

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/its-all-about-you/feed0Feng Jianmei and the Central Horrorhttp://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/feng-jianmei-and-the-central-horror
http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/feng-jianmei-and-the-central-horror#respondTue, 04 Sep 2012 14:08:01 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=897There is a time for everything.

There is a time to mourn. There is a time to be angry. There is a time to reflect. In the recent revelation concerning Feng Jianmei and her daughter, it is time for all three.

In mid-June, the story broke. A 23-year-old Chinese woman, Feng Jianmei, was forced by local family-planning officials to have an abortion.

The story in short is this: Feng Jianmei lived in a rural area of China, the north-western province of Shaanxi. She was married to Deng Jiyuan, and already had one child. She became pregnant again and carried her child for 7 months, only 2 months shy of birth. Local family planning officials found out that she was pregnant. As is universally known, China has a one-child policy, meaning that couples are only allowed to have one child – if they want a second, they must pay a “social maintenance fee” which varies depending upon geographic location – it would have been 40,000 Yuan for Feng Jianmei. Because her husband only made 4,000 Yuan a month, he left for the mines of Mongolia to boost his income so that they may be able to pay the fine. While he was gone, 12 officials confronted Feng and tried to force her into a car. She refused and fled to her aunt’s house, they then broke through the gate of her aunt’s home. She then fled to nearby mountains and hid at a friend’s home. The officials again followed her and found her hiding under a bed. She was forcibly taken to a local hospital and blindfolded. She was forced to sign a form that she could not even see. At that point, the proper chemicals were injected by syringe into her belly. The cocktail of chemicals killed her daughter, and then induced birth. About 30 hours after the injection, Feng Jianmei gave birth to her baby girl, but she was dead.

She was later quoted as saying, “I could feel the baby jumping around inside me all the time, but then she went still.”

More than anything else, what has roused people to fury and action is the photograph of Feng Jianmei and her daughter, laying side by side on the hospital bed, one alive, one dead. I beseech you to look at the photograph, and allow the image to shock your conscience.

Seeing these two people on the hospital bed and hearing the story should bring our conscience to mourning, arouse our anger, and hopefully lead our minds to serious reflection.

Thankfully, a huge cross-section of people are speaking up about this issue, not the least of which being the Chinese people themselves. They have been a buzz on online social networks and elsewhere. There is a serious discussion going on amongst journalists, academics, and others about the one-child policy and it’s end or at least modification. Some discussion being on moral grounds, and other discussion being on economic grounds.

There is so much in this story that ought produce mourning and anger. There is the one-child policy itself, the common practice of intentionally and selectively aborting baby girls, the shredding of parental rights, the disregard of the marriage relationship, the disdain of the local officials, the violence toward the mother, the lack of international condemnation, and of course the central horror: the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

That China even has a one-child policy defies reality, goodness, and natural law. It is good and natural that a marriage relationship would produce children. Demanding that the most natural outcome of marriage be curtailed is a perversion of the institution and promise itself. This policy is a feeble but destructive attempt to alter the basic realities of human union.

That baby girls are selected and intentionally aborted in massively higher numbers than baby boys is shameful, and it is not just in China, this is around the world. It has been noticed in countries all over the world, from Asia to Europe and even to North America. Last month, our own American congress could not even garner enough support to pass a law banning sex-selective abortions.

That ‘local family planning officials’ (the phrase in itself should make you shudder) and the government believe they have the right to dictate a married couple’s legal sexual relationship, and the outcome thereof, is a massive assault on parental authority over their children and basic family decisions.

That these officials acted when the husband had left to make more money is a disregard of marriage in the highest order. It is a display of hate towards the husband and a show of craftiness a serpent would admire.

That the local officials were willing to perpetrate a violent attack on this woman and actually did so shows the numbing and twisting effect that a corrupted culture can have on its people. It was reported that when they found the mother hiding under a bed, they laughed.

That condemnation wasn’t wider and deeper is troubling. Our own U.S. President has condemned China in the past, and rightly so, for internet censorship and environmental breaches. To not do so in this event is at least questionable. It’s very true that we as ordinary citizens don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, and perhaps there is quiet pressure on China. And maybe there are more effective ways to change China’s behavior that loud proclamations, but at the end of the day, truth must be spoken to power, in some form or another. Our President has spoken to us before about teachable moments, and presented with Feng Jianmei’s story, it may be time to stand up and teach.

But the central horror in this story is not the one-child policy itself, nor the disregard for the marriage relationship, nor the lack of condemnation. The central horror in this story is that an innocent human being who would have lived a life was intentionally killed by another human being. Feng Jianmei’s daughter, 7 months old in the womb, 2 months from birth, was injected with heart-stopping chemicals. It was not an instantaneous death, the little girl writhed in pain before she died. This daughter was not consulted about her death. This ending of innocent life the central horror that leads us to mourning, anger, and reflection.

The mourning and anger is obvious. The reflection gets a bit more difficult.

The reflection is so difficult because we’re haunted by the nagging thought that will not leave…the thought that the central horror of this story may very well be true with every abortion, except those that are intended to save the life of the child or mother. With an abortion, a young and innocent human being is intentionally killed by another human being. It is an inescapable truth. It is a pervasive practice around the world and incredibly common in our own country. Whether the child is a month old or seven months old, the result is the same.

With this issue like no other, our vision and wisdom have been clouded. It has been obscured by supreme court decisions, heated talk, murdered abortionists, graphic pictures, and street-side protestors. At times, it is disorienting and confusing. But when the dust settles, we are left with a central horror, that whether a mother consents or is forced like Feng Jianmei, an innocent child is intentionally killed. This is not a natural death. Natural deaths are to be mourned, but an intentional killing is a much more difficult tragedy.

We must open our eyes and face what is staring at us. We must allow a story like Feng Jianmei’s to shed light on the central horror of any abortion, forced or not. Let the traditional arguments and counter-arguments dissipate, even if only for a moment, and see it for what it is.

No one is innocent in this. We have all either been active or passive in supporting it. I am guilty just as any other.

If we allow this to lead us to mourning, anger, and reflection, then perhaps we can move toward grasping ours failings and turn from our ways. There is such a thing as personal and corporate redemption. Let us seek it, and rest in it.

Mark Earley

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/feng-jianmei-and-the-central-horror/feed0The Modern Vampirehttp://www.thependerjournal.com/entertainment/the-modern-vampire
http://www.thependerjournal.com/entertainment/the-modern-vampire#respondWed, 29 Aug 2012 15:09:14 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=888Vampires are utterly fascinating. Along with teenage girls across the nation, I have been gobbling up vampire literature and watching all the re-creations of this once-horrific monster of superstition. Unlike my contemporary group of teenagers, I am not just caught up in idolizing the suave Robert Pattinson. In fact, there is something about these blood-suckers that I relate to, something just… human. As much as we may deny it or write it off as immature and juvenile, our vampire obsession may say more about our culture than we dare admit.

What once was merely the subject old wives tales and a creature of whispers can now hardly be avoided anywhere that propagates pop culture. What is this pale creature that feeds on the blood of others? Is he fanged and asleep in a coffin? Is he dashingly attractive and sparkling in the light? Is he white as snow with eyes of crimson? Regardless of exact appearances, physically he is the pinnacle of human vivacity: speed beyond the fastest human, and strength beyond the most powerful man. To complete this corporeal fantasy, the vampire has what men always seek… immortality. This is the vampire: the culmination of human desire.

All that humans have fruitlessly chased for centuries is bequeathed unto the vampire, and yet despite custody of all that could be coveted in this world, somehow the vampire is not happy. Across the genre, there seems to be a common theme of discontent and, strikingly, a sentiment that all that this world has to offer isn’t enough. The vampire Henry Sturgess himself has this to say of his own three hundred years:

“‎When this intoxication has worn away… when every desire is fulfilled and every language learned – when there are no more distant cities to explore; no classics to be studied; not another coin to be stuffed in to one’s coffers- what then? One can have all the comforts of the world, but what use are they if there is no comfort in them?”(from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter)

Henry embodies what I appreciate most in vampire literature: the monster who has discovered his self-feeding life to be unfulfilling. He is the vampire who wants something more than an eternity spent in the comforts of the world.

For along with their supposed gifts comes a blood lust beyond imagining – a craving only satisfied by the death of another. Vampires are inherently defined by a desire for the life force of others, and similar to their human cousins, there are those who attempt to control their ‘thirst’… and there are those who do not. A choice. It is easy to hate a monster, but I believe it may be harder to recognize why he is. A lust beyond any sexual craving – is this really too different than the lust glorified in our own popular culture and the lust we daily deal with within ourselves?

Too often, especially in religious circles and amongst older generations, vampire literature is condemned as grossly demonic and the subject of teenage sexual fantasy; yet in our criticism of everything Twilight, I think we forget that authors such as Stephanie Meyer do not parade the vampire’s bite as the solution to all woe. It is a curse, and Edward Cullen knows it better than any. To kill for life, to exist as a monster in society’s eyes, and most of all to lose one’s soul, is nothing more than an eternal anguish and one he never wished upon his bride. Through the whole series, Edward does all he can to avoid damning his love to an eternity he has found empty. Does Twilight (among other vampire literature) really glorify vampirism? Or is it simply well-hidden, if not terribly well-written, hyperbole?

The vampire has become the Mr. Hyde of today’s society – the perfect monster of the flesh. We can escape into fictional re-creations of this monster because he is not too different from us. We may not have eternity to chase the material world, but will that stop us from spending a lifetime? We may not thirst for the taste of blood; yet that which we do crave is equally damaging. We are the modern vampire, just without the fangs.

Maybe our obsession with vampires stems from a recognition of humanity as somewhat monstrous. And yet, despite our monstrosity, there are those who turn their back on a living damnation and grasp at a hope. It is a hope to defy the flesh that seeks just to use and consume; a hope that gives strength to deny ourselves the most aching desires that we know are, in the end, destructive. It is a hope to live as someone better and a hope to live for something more than ourselves, whether it be for decades or for centuries.

Daniel Strait

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/entertainment/the-modern-vampire/feed0Wonder from the Airplane Windowhttp://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/wonder-from-the-airplane-window
http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/wonder-from-the-airplane-window#respondMon, 27 Aug 2012 13:00:50 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=880When I fly, I’m captivated by the view. Peering out the window of an airplane gives me a new perspective, as I soar above the earth, far below. Roadways are dotted with tiny, slow-moving cars, each with its own destination. Commercial centers, baseball fields, and residential tracts have been constructed between the forests and lakes that have preceded them. The landscape below is expansive and complex.

Looking down at the world from above, I am reminded of a simple fact:

I’m not that important.

This is humbling. It makes me feel very small. The realization is foreign, yet strangely comforting. I am grateful as I realize that, while I’m unique, my life is one piece of a much larger puzzle. To think otherwise is to delude myself.

This reality often escapes me. When engaged in the daily grind of my life, I have an outsized view of my own self-importance. Work responsibilities must be met, phone calls returned, witty jokes must be made– all in the service of affirming that I’m important and that I have value. I am the locus of my world and I act accordingly.

My world is a constant struggle to prove who I am by what I do. I want to be a good employee, a good son, a good boyfriend. I want people like me and think I’m competent. I want to be invited to parties. I want people to applaud my witticisms on Facebook. I want to feel important. The drive to affirm my own self-importance is the very thing that causes me to miss out on the wonder of the world around me. Trying to prove myself becomes crippling.

Yet, the view from the plane– with tray tables up end electronic devices off– helps me see the world for what it is: a place of complexity, mystery, and wonder. It is a place to be enjoyed, where I am not the center. Looking out the window, I appreciate the world without trying to get something from it. It is liberating. I am at rest.

But when I land, after turning my phone back on and hustling out of the terminal, the view from above fades quickly. How can I remember that view after I’ve landed? The demands of my life compel me to forget. I must remember that world is bigger than the reality of life as I experience it. By recognizing a reality greater than my own, I am able to enjoy the world, and participate in it, as it was intended.

Blaine Lay

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/ideas/contemplations/wonder-from-the-airplane-window/feed0Discovering Art – Towards a Producthttp://www.thependerjournal.com/art/discovering-art-towards-a-product
http://www.thependerjournal.com/art/discovering-art-towards-a-product#respondWed, 15 Aug 2012 20:05:27 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=866How far have we come? We found that artists create in a context, with a medium, moving through a process. But where to? Towards a product – the completed piece of artwork. What is this finished creation? It is a gift. Artists create a work that they give to the public. This is risky; and our reception is ruptured with problems. Let’s talk buildings.

Architecture is a robust art form. It functions practically, containing elevators, restaurants, classrooms and offices; people work, play and live. It accommodates aesthetics: bricks and wood, domes and spires, arches and columns. Architecture is collaborative, requiring the skills of many. It is lasting, symbolic and necessary. But most pertinent to our discussion: architecture is extremely public. At a single moment, a building stands before the eyes of thousands. Rarely do other art forms rival this publicity. A city would need to continually blast music through its streets, fly canvases overhead or raise sculptures as towers. But this is not the norm. Architecture soars.

Consider New York City. It houses the Wall Street Bull, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Broadway plays, quirky craft shops and nightly music shows. But what looms more prominent than any of these? The Empire State Building, and formerly the Twin Towers. I realize the Statue of Liberty, a sculpture, is quite noticeable. But she is an exception; the Empire State Building still enjoys much of the artistic limelight. If New York is unconvincing, consider Shanghai’s Oriental Tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the Eiffel Tower and Sydney Opera House. If any sound unfamiliar, look them up. You’ve seen them. Architecture is art, readily available and highly exposed.

How is this exposure significant for the architect? When the artist says, “It is finished” and releases their work to the world, it stands vulnerable to the judgment of all. What do musicians do with their latest album? They host a “release party”, or “launch” it. Like a bird and her peep. Momma Feathers nurtures her baby in the nest and releases her. Artists birth their work and offer it to the world, consigning it to the public. Creating is risky. How do we, the public, respond?

We respond to art in three improper ways. But there is hope for renovation. Let’s consider films and cathedrals, beginning with our vilest tendency and proceeding to the more innocent.

Our worst response to art is to misuse it. You are a toy salesman and you saw Toy Story. Hoping to sell Buzz Lightyear and Woody figures for the upcoming holiday, you play the movie in your toyshop to convince the kid-customers that your dolls will come to life like they do in the movie. Children are then tugging on their mom’s wrist, begging for one. Of course after the holiday these kids are patiently holding Mr. Potatohead, waiting for him to walk, or shaking his eyeballs off because he will not talk. Funny? Yes, but twisted. A more debased example involves architecture.

Most cities in the U.S. have a Catholic cathedral. Whether spired or domed, the insides coruscate with jewels, mosaics and statues. Architects designed cathedrals to honor God; riches and grandeur reflected his majesty. How is a cathedral misused? When a priest bids you to give your money by appealing to the surrounding palace. Something has gone awry. The issue is not whether a divine Being deserves our money. The problem is that a cathedral created to display splendor has become an instrument for monetary persuasion. It magnifies beauty, a beauty now exploited. It persuaded worship, but now persuades a guilt offering. The architect promoted reverence; the priest, a payoff. This is misuse.

Another response is no response, that is, rejection. I do not mean disagreement, as in rejecting a message or ideal, but simply refusing to listen. You watch Toy Story, turn off the television, and go about your business. You contemplate nothing about the film. On your commute, you pass by the cathedral and ignore it. Eyes closed, ears stopped, you dismiss or remain totally apathetic to the artwork before you.

If you have not perverted the artist’s product or barricaded your mind, then you meet a work of art. The product confronts you and you must respond. Instinctively, you try to make sense of the work; that is, you interpret it. The problem is that we tend to do this poorly. Yet misinterpretation is an honorable fault compared to the previous two. Watching Toy Story, you hear “To infinity, and beyond!” Clearly, you think, Buzz Lightyear’s motto is a subtle stab at suburbia. There’s an entire universe out there and we must escape our sterile bedrooms! Is that what Mr. Lasseter and the writers meant? Or, you and a friend visit a cathedral. Exploring inside, your conversation goes something like this:

“Hey Sid, look at this. You see this lamb? The sun is shining behind it, there’s a halo around its head, and it’s in a lofty position. It’s looking down with a calm expression.”
“Yeah, it’s so peaceful, and it’s so white.”
“Look at this other one. I think this is the Christmas scene. Those are the wise men and baby Jesus. And those donkeys are kneeling around him. A pretty solemn episode.”
“Uh, huh,” says Sid. “It’s like God and the animals get along. He must really care about them.”
“It’s almost like he is the lamb over there. High, radiant, gentle and kind.”
“Yeah,” Sid remarks.“I don’t see how people can kill animals.”
“What? Don’t you think it’s more about God?”
“Well, animals seem important. I mean look at that one, there’s a dove flying over Jesus.”
“Yeah, but this is a cathedral. The whole building is about God.”
“I saw a lot of birds outside.”

Interpretation is a tipsy enterprise. How can we ever really know what the artist meant? Were the Catholics extolling God’s affection for critters? Is Toy Story toppling common American households? We want to make sense of these things. Is there hope for correct interpretation? I think so. But how? We will discuss this and a more important question next time. But we must cooperate with the artist and employ a few virtues. Only then can we unlock the wonders of their art.

Arthur Keefer

]]>http://www.thependerjournal.com/art/discovering-art-towards-a-product/feed0Summer Anthem Power Rankingshttp://www.thependerjournal.com/entertainment/summer-anthem-power-rankings
http://www.thependerjournal.com/entertainment/summer-anthem-power-rankings#respondMon, 13 Aug 2012 18:15:03 +0000http://www.thependerjournal.com/?p=855In addition to vacations, pools, beaches, and barbecues, summer has given us some great anthems with which to celebrate the season. A truly great summer hit has got to be more than just a catchy pop song. It must have that indefinable ‘X-factor’ that causes it to repeat endlessly in our heads, that urges us to crank up the volume and roll down the windows, and that commands us to drop what we’re doing and start dancing.

In the interest of commemorating the great summer anthems of the 2000s, I have ranked the number 1 singles from each summer since 2001. With Wikipedia as my guide, I explored these hit-songs to remind all of us what great taste in music we have had.

12. We Belong Together (2005) – Mariah Carey
To be honest, I neither know this song, nor do I have any desire to hear it. My cursory research into ‘05s biggest summer song showed that it came from an album entitled, ‘The Emancipation of MiMi.’ So that about sums it up.

Tie 10. Promiscuous (2006) – Nelly Furtado ft. Timbaland & I Kissed a Girl – (2008) Katy Perry
Otherwise generic pop tunes took a turn for the edgy, though it’s hard to decipher exactly what Nelly and Timbaland are talking about. If we learned one thing from summers ‘06 and ’08 it’s that a provocative title can go a long way to cover up a mediocre product.

8-9. U Remind Me/Burn (2001/2004) – Usher
OMG, Usher has two number one singles in the 2000s? YEAH, he sure does. Before we get too ‘Caught Up,’ in the hype, we’ve got to recognize that these #1s are some downers. Usher seems to drop his heavier stuff on consumers in the summer months. What’s ‘More,’ these slow jams are catchy but my ‘Confessions’ are that these are not the kind of material I find myself still humming today.

7. Rolling in the Deep (2011) – Adele
It is undeniably a great song. But I’m not convinced that it works as a summer anthem. If Adele could only get a little happier she could certainly ascend to summer anthem glory.

6. Hot in Herre (2002) – Nelly
Nelly picked up on a vital characteristic of summer – it’s hot. Using some 2nd grade logic, he crafted a thoughtful and insightful reflection on what happens on hot summer nights in the club.

Tie 4. Umbrella (2007) – Rhianna & California Gurls (2010) – Katy Perry ft. Snoop Dog
Katy’s second summer entry is much more accessible and light. Along with Rhianna’s classic offering which permanently changed the pronunciation of the word ‘umbarella,’ these two songs struck a nerve in listeners who just wanted a catchy, fun summer tune that didn’t ask much intellectually but also didn’t take itself too seriously.

3. Call Me Maybe (2012) – Carly Rae Jepson
This song came from out of nowhere! An unknown artist ascends to pop-culture glory with one of the catchiest chorus’ in recent memory. This song symbolizes summer in so many ways – brisk, light, innocent fun.

2. I Gotta Feeling (2009) – Black Eyed Peas
Of all the songs on this list, this one might have been the most overplayed. And some of you might be rolling your eyes or shaking your head to see this, but I simply ask you to remember a happier time in the early summer of ’09, when a summer anthem took everyone by storm and gave the phrase “Mazel Tov” as much popularity as when Fiddler on the Roof first came out in 1971.

1. Crazy in Love (2003) – Beyonce ft. Jay Z
There you have it. Infectious horns, insanely catchy hooks, two top artists at the top of their games – Crazy in Love is the consummate summer hit. Beyonce and Jay Z stepped up their game with this jam that you can still find on the radio today.

Now you know the summer songs that have taken this country by storm. So what songs do YOU think should have been number one summer anthems?